Fallacy of ignorance???

[JetLeg]

I am sorry if this is a silly question, but -

If someone is making a statement about a subject he knows awfully little about, about a subject he did not take the care to research - is this a fallacy of logic? And if not of logic, of what is it a fallacy?

[Cosmo]

And if not of logic, of what is it a fallacy?

A fallacy not of logic seems to be a contradiction in terms.

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't call it a fallacy so much as I would call it, um, "stupid".

[JetLeg]

I wouldn't call it a fallacy so much as I would call it, um, "stupid".

This is just name-calling.

[Hokulele]

This is just name-calling.


It would be name calling if you are claiming that you will make "...a statement about a subject he knows awfully little about, about a subject he did not take the care to research..." If you are not claiming to do this, how is it name-calling?

I fully stand by my claim that this (i.e. the behavior as described in the OP) is stupid.

[JetLeg]

I fully stand by my claim that this (i.e. the behavior as described in the OP) is stupid.

But saying that something is stupid is not a good form of criticism at all. It is not even an argument.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I am sorry if this is a silly question, but -

If someone is making a statement about a subject he knows awfully little about, about a subject he did not take the care to research - is this a fallacy of logic? And if not of logic, of what is it a fallacy?

No, it is not a fallacy in the logical sense. And it need not even be a fallacy in the sense of a misconception or error. Yer man may be wrong, but you'll have to fight it out with him.

[JetLeg]

No, it is not a fallacy in the logical sense. And it need not even be a fallacy in the sense of a misconception or error. Yer man may be wrong, but you'll have to fight it out with him.

Maybe it is an inductive fallacy?

[Hokulele]

But saying that something is stupid is not a good form of criticism at all. It is not even an argument.


Sure it is a valid criticism. There is a great deal of human behavior that is patently stupid. Calling it misguided, poorly thought out, or even a fallacy is just playing amateur thesaurus.

Don't forget, logic doesn't have to apply to stupidity.

[JetLeg]

Sure it is a valid criticism. There is a great deal of human behavior that is patently stupid. Calling it misguided, poorly thought out, or even a fallacy is just playing amateur thesaurus.





Just rephrase what you said as an argument, and you are left with


(1) X is wrong because X is stupid.


But X would not be stupid if it had not been wrong. So you are merely begging the question.


Don't forget, logic doesn't have to apply to stupidity.

But you have to use logic to show something is stupid.

[Hokulele]

Just rephrase what you said as an argument, and you are left with


(1) X is wrong because X is stupid.


But X would not be stupid if it had not been wrong. So you are merely begging the question.


I never said X is wrong because X is stupid. I am saying simply that X is stupid. Wrongness doesn't come into play here. X could be equally right and stupid. Or wrong and not stupid.

But you have to use logic to show something is stupid.


Nope, examples work perfectly well. If you would like one, please refer to the OP. Now, if you want to talk about wrongness, that is something different.

[JetLeg]

I never said X is wrong because X is stupid. I am saying simply that X is stupid. Wrongness doesn't come into play here. X could be equally right and stupid. Or wrong and not stupid.



Even if the above is correct, "stupid" is merely a pejorative term.

Imagine that I say : All A is B, and all C is B. Therefore no A is C.

Now, you can say that it is stupid. But this is no argument. Giving a counter-example would be much better.

[qayak]

It is known as an "argument from ignorance" and is indeed a logical fallacy.

[Hokulele]

The problem is your question in the OP was not a logic question, and counter examples do not necessarily apply. The question directly applied to the behaviour of the person, not the statement itself. The persons statement could be true, not true, or completely irrelevant. So, to expand on my answer to the OP as written:

Someone who makes a statement regarding a subject about which he or she is woefully ignorant is behaving in a stupid manner.

Someone who instead chooses to research the subject is not behaving in a stupid manner.

Someone who simply keeps their mouth shut in the first place is wise beyond his or her years.


(You may want to reword your question and try again.)

ETA: qayak, you're spoiling my fun! :p

[Mobyseven]

Maybe it is an inductive fallacy?

Methinks those words do not mean what you think they mean.

Pray tell, how could it be an inductive fallacy? This oughta be good...

[Mobyseven]

It is known as an "argument from ignorance" and is indeed a logical fallacy.

No - argument from ignorance refers to something very different to what JetLeg is describing. Argument from ignorance is, "You can't prove ~P; Therefore P," or alternately, "You can't prove P; Therefore ~P."

Ignorance in that sense relates to our state of knowledge regarding a given proposition.

JetLeg is talking about a person being ignorant of a topic and commenting on it. To make reference to the fact that the person is ignorant would be an argumentum ad hominem and therefore in itself would be a logical fallacy. The only way to proceed would be to demonstrate why the statement the person made was incorrect/ignorant, and by demonstrating that the person has little knowledge of the subject that they are ignorant of the subject.

You can't start with the premise, "X is ignorant." You can only finish there after you've demonstrated why they are ignorant.

[Elizabeth I]

It is known as an "argument from ignorance" and is indeed a logical fallacy.

I thought "argument from ignorance" was something along the lines of "that can't be true because I never heard of it."

[fishbob]

Someone is making a statement about a subject he knows awfully little about, about a subject he did not take the care to research, is wasting his time, and the time of the victims of his exposition.

Not a fallacy so much as just rude.

[Mobyseven]

I thought "argument from ignorance" was something along the lines of "that can't be true because I never heard of it."

That's closer to an argument from personal incredulity. Argument from ignorance is more, "This is true because you can't prove it's not," or, "This is true because we don't know that it's false."

[drkitten]

Just rephrase what you said as an argument, and you are left with
(1) X is wrong because X is stupid.


Not at all. First of all, I don't think anyone claimed that the statement was stupid, just that the person making it was stupid.

Second, just because the person making a statement is stupid does not make it wrong. On the other hand, given that there are a bajillion wrong statements for each right statement, the probabilty that a statement made in total ignorance is correct can be (inductively) dismissed.

And third, not all errors of reasoning are fallacies. Simple epistemological errors -- holding a true statement to be false and vice versa -- are not fallacies, but are indeed errors. Anyone who holds a statement made in total ignorance to be correct is (with likelihood near one) committing such an epistemological error.

In more formal terms:

(1) X knows nothing about Y.
(2) X said that Y is true.
Therefore,
(3) X is stupid
(4) Y is likely to be false.

[Beerina]

A person with little knowledge of a subject could make a logical observation based on already-presented facts. It may or may not be wildly off, depending on unpresented-but-necessary-and-assumed facts, but could be useful.

This seems to be the opposite of that other thread that suggests that a person with a higher IQ would statistically be more likely to be accurate in what they say than a dumb person would be.

[fuelair]

But saying that something is stupid is not a good form of criticism at all. It is not even an argument.
Not every comment on a statement is required to be an argument.